No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
In Plate 17 and Figs. 1–2 I publish a bowl formerly in the possession of Humfry Payne, which passed to me from Mrs. Payne. It was bought in Athens and was, I believe, found in Attica.
The shape is common in Attica in the late seventh and early sixth centuries, not elsewhere, unless perhaps in Boeotia. That this vase is Attic is made certain by the clay, which is a warm brown with a tendency to red. The surface is well polished. The paint is good, rather lustrous, and brown where used thinly. The applied red is exactly that of many Attic vases of the period.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1950
References
1 The bowl, left in the British School at Athens in 1939, was missing on my return to Athens in 1945, and I have not recovered it. The photographs are by Emil Seraf, the drawings by Miss Audrey Petty. She has not been able to complete them in front of the vase, but their accuracy may be relied on.
2 The Corinthian examples, NC, nos. 716–9, fig. 132, differ in many important respects: in the size of the foot, the profile of the rim, and the fact that the chief picture is inside. This means that they were intended to stand on their feet and be looked into. Our vase and others like it, with the main decoration on the outside, were hung on the wall when not in use; cf. NC, fig. 44D; Louvre E 623, Pottier pl. 45; Beazley, , MetrMusStud V, 101Google Scholar, and fig. 10.
3 NC 31 and n. 1. To the list of his works there given add:
Pyxis, fr., Athens, from Perachora, , Perachora I, pl. 24, 1 (Payne)Google Scholar;
Oinochoe, , Corinth, C. 32.233, AJA XLI (1937), 230, figs. 28–9Google Scholar; Corinth VII, i, pl. 31, 225 (Boulter);
Broad-bottomed Oinochoe, fr., Syracuse, from Megara Hyblaea grave 21, MA I, 815, no. 4 (very like NC, no. 167);
Olpe, New York 96.18.38;
Alabastron, Athens, from Perachora (Hopper);
Alabastron, Princeton, Record of the Museum of Historic Art II (1943), 11 (Weinberg).
These are works of his late middle and late period. I believe that, as Payne suggested, the alabastra of the Griffon Group (NC, nos. 84–6, 88–9) are his, and add two alabastra from Perachora; and suggest that the pointed aryballoi, NC, nos. 57 and 58, are his earliest work. The last suggestion may point out where he learnt to draw; his master was the Head-in-Air Painter (see Robertson, M., BSA XLIII, 45Google Scholar); see Johansen's remarks, VS, 102, on no. 67 (NC, no. 57), and compare their range of animals and facile style.
4 A fairly close parallel is offered by the oinochoe Corinth VII, i, pl. 25, no. 186.
5 Cf. London A 1006, NC, no. 35; NC, pl. 26, 2.
6 I see no reason to depart from Payne's dating of Corinthian vases; see Hopper, R. J., BSA XLIV, 169 ff., 254 ff.Google Scholar It might be possible to bring down the beginning of Early Corinthian by a few years, to c. 620–615, thus allowing more time for the development through Late Protocorinthian and Transitional. This does not conflict with the evidence of Selinus (NC, 24; Hopper, op. cit., 177 ff.). But this is perhaps a vicious precision, suggesting greater accuracy than the evidence allows.
7 Mrs. Karouzou's kindness enables me to illustrate in PLATE 18 another fine work of this painter, the amphora, Athens 16393, from Vari. She tells me that among the other vases from Vari in the National Museum in Athens is another amphora by the Lion Painter, to which, she believes, the Vlasto fragment belongs. Another work (or perhaps another fragment of one of those vases) is New York 38.11.10 (BullMetrMus XXXIV, 99 f.: C. Alexander).
8 For the sixth-century ‘Corinthio-Attic’ vases see H. R. W. Smith, The Hearst Hydria, especially 252–3.
9 AE 1897, pll. 5–6; cf. NC, 346–7; Cook, J. M., BSA XXXV, 200–1.Google Scholar Some of Cook's criticism of Payne is, I think, beside the mark; for if, as I attempt to show below, the Peiraieus amphora is influenced by, and imitates both Late Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian, then, so far as it imitates Late Protocorinthian, it is imitating old-fashioned works; and this is not disproved by the existence at the same period of Attic painters who do not imitate old-fashioned or any other Corinthian works.
10 Compare and contrast NC, fig. 20.
11 A similar time-lag runs through Attico-Corinthian relations. The Peiraieus amphora, a work of c. 620 B.C. (the Early Corinthian character of the cock will not permit an earlier date) recalls Corinthian vases of some twenty years earlier; our bowl, Corinthio-Attic work of c. 620, has its few Attic followers in the decade 600–590; the C Painter's work, of 570–60, bears most resemblance in spirit and in many details to Middle Corinthian models (cf. Kraiker, AM LIX, 10; H. R. W. Smith, The Hearst Hydria, 268, n. 19; the cup in Bonn mentioned by Smith is JVC, no. 997). In taking up new subjects, as well as in some points of style, Attic painters are ten or twenty years behind Corinthian (cf. NC, 124). The slight reduction of Corinthian dates suggested by Hopper, (BSA XLIV, 169 ff.Google Scholar; cf. n. 6) would shorten but not abolish this time-lag; and other comparisons between Attic and Corinthian, together with grave-groups and other complexes of associated material, show that Corinthian dates cannot be much reduced in relation to Attic. The time-lag might be explained as due to the natural lag of the imitator behind his model, but it may be rather that there were intermediaries whose works have not survived. This would also explain the nature of the imitation, detailed and yet selective, thorough-going but consistent with a pure Attic spirit.
12 See Beazley, , Hesperia XIII, 43–4.Google Scholar The Kerameikos vases must be later than Kübler placed them in his preliminary report, and belong to the early sixth century; in AA 1934, 213, Kübler makes this correction. The style of the figure AA 1932, 197–8, fig. 5, and of those not there illustrated, confirms this view of the date (Mr. R. J. H. Jenkins has confirmed my view on this point, and, while allowing that the figure might be earlier than 600, is inclined to date it in the following decade; cf. also Poulsen, V. H., From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 11, 107).Google Scholar But the sixth-century date is firmly established by the style of the painting; not only the likeness to the Gorgon Painter's early work, but also a comparison of the lion on the jug with a full series of Attic lions; he is later than NC, fig. 200, who belongs to the late seventh century.
13 Beazley, , Hesperia XIII, 42 (Painter of A.M. 62)Google Scholar; H. R. W. Smith, The Hearst Hydria, 252. R. J. Hopper points out to me that another of the earliest of these Corinthianizing vases, the aryballos from the Kerameikos, , AA 1934, 207, fig. 7Google Scholar, has some elements in the drawing derived from the workshop of the Head-in-Air and Sphinx Painters. This also is an example of the time-lag discussed above (cf. Hopper, , BSA XLIV, 171, n. 35).Google Scholar
14 Soc. Friends Nat. Mus. 1934–5, fig. 8; AJA 1937, pl. 8; AA 1940, 129–30, fig. 6 (there ascribed by Mrs. Karouzou to the Nessos Painter).
15 Another early sixth-century example is the kotyle-krater Munich 7409: see below p. 198 and n. 18.
16 Professor Beazley introduced me to this vase, and Dr. H. Diepold?r kindly supplied information and photographs.
17 Cf. BSA XXXV, 186, 199.
18 They occur also on the contemporary bowl in Leipzig, AA 1923–4, 52, no. 3.
19 AM LXII, pl. 45; Hesperia XIII, 45, no. 5 and pl. 5. 1 (KX Painter).
20 JdI 1903, 137, fig. 9; cf. Karouzou, S., AM LXII, 134Google Scholar; Beazley, , Hesperia XIII, 45, no. 10 (KX Painter).Google Scholar
21 Athens 15499. Mon Piot XXXIII, 44, fig. 1 and pl. 6; AM LXII, pl. 52; Beazley, , Hesperia XIII, 50, no. 16.Google Scholar
22 Plut. Solon 24.
23 In Corinth, Perachora, Aegina; Sicily (Megara Hyblaea, Gela); Etruria and Carthage; works of other associates have been found in Rhodes (NC, no. 90).
24 Beazley, ABS, 10 ff.; Payne, NC, 346 f.
25 BSA XXXV, pl. 55 b. Hardly by the Ram Jug Painter, as J. M. Cook suggests (op. cit., 194), and later than the date which his comparison implies. It appears to me more advanced than the Kynosarges amphora; the breadth of head, and the curve of the top and back, compare with ‘Agamemnon’ on the fragment BSA XXXV, pl. 54 .f These two, and the work of Gebauer's ‘Frauenmaler’ (CVA Berlin I, p. 7) I suppose to be a little earlier than the Lion Painter (see above, p. 195 and n. 7). The vases which Cook puts into the gap between Kynosarges and Nessos, as he says, do not fill it; accepting the date c. 640 for the Kynosarges amphora (Cook, op. cit., 201; Burr, D., Hesperia 11, 636)Google Scholar, the gap must cover more than twenty years, and the vases which Cook puts into it belong to the second half of this period, and are more closely related to Peiraieus and Nessos than to Kynosarges. Cook remarks the resemblances of his pieces from the gap with Transitional Corinthian, but they seem to correspond in time with later rather than earlier Transitional.
26 Cf. Cook, op. cit., 201.
27 Acropolis 816; Jenkins, Dedalica, pl. 6–8 and pp. 50–1.
For an Attic terracotta head of c. 600 which has very close Corinthian relations, see Hesperia VI, 378, fig. 44; cf. Poulsen, , From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, 11, 107 (cf. 87 ff.).Google Scholar
28 For the date see Adcock, F. E., BSA IV, 27, 661Google Scholar; F. Jacoby, Atthis, 186 ff., 271, n. 219.
29 For the evidence for this decline see BSA XXXVII, 83 ff.
30 See Richter, G. M. A., MetrMusStud V, 20 ff.Google Scholar
31 J. M. Cook, op. cit., 204.
32 Contrast the funerary amphorae with the plain vases in which oil was exported (Young, R. S., Late Geometric Graves, 179, 210)Google Scholar. These range as far as Sicily and Egypt. But few of them are older than the last quarter of the seventh century, when, perhaps, export of oil began to develop.